The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is the Universe conscious (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24
R.S.
View Profile
Elite user
CT one day I'll have
442 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Anyway, do YOU think that God is omnibenevolent?

Yes.


What do you suppose the world would look like under a NON-omnibenevolent God? How would things be different than the way they are now?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3501 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Anyway, do YOU think that God is omnibenevolent?

Yes.

What do you suppose the world would look like under a NON-omnibenevolent God? How would things be different than the way they are now?

Got me.
R.S.
View Profile
Elite user
CT one day I'll have
442 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
What direct and unequivocal information about God's nature do "scholars" have that you and I don't have? They're only human too, right?

Got me.


Except the question was loaded.

"Direct and unequivocal" is a standard that cannot be met by science. Scientific Gnosticism remains gnostic, regardless of its pretension to be rational.


Perhaps this rephrasing is more to your liking?”

What information about God's nature do "scholars" have that you and I don't have (or have access to)?

Quote:
Ron: I accuse you of scientism and Gnosticism, and would love to have a beer with you some day so that you can accuse me of all sorts of intellectual perversions, And we will laugh and drink more beer.


And I accuse you of Stoneism and Gnostoneism, and would also love to have a beer with you some day. I will not only accuse you of intellectual perversions, but I’ll also accuse you of ineffectual subversions, and maybe we can start our own cult together. That would be a blast! And you could drink more beer, but not me cuz I usually only have one drink.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Elite user
CT one day I'll have
442 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Highlighting a distinction between math and science. Theorems are unequivocal; theories are not.

Theorems are unequivocal given a set of premises (usually called axioms or postulates to make them sound cool), and a set of rules of inference.

The only difference between mathematics and other forms of science (yes: mathematics is science, no matter how hard you try to deny it) is that in mathematics the premises are less tenuous.

You need to stop riding this ridiculous distinction of yours as if it were an elephant; it's a mouse. Smile

Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Both mathematicians and scientists may, however, be loaded.

I'm not.

Now.

At least, not much.

Smile

By the way . . . with you, too.


Sounds good to me! First round is on me! Smile

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1160 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 26, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 26, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 26, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 26, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I enjoy the religious fervour with which Ron always goes at this stuff.

He's not making a claim, you know! Smile


Says Mr. “neutral” (wink, wink). :--)

Not sure what the winks are, unless you mean to suggest that I'm really a theist, in which case LOL.
Quote:
Quote:

I'm always impressed by the faith of both theists and atheists.


Faith is not a component of atheism. No more than faith is a component of not believing in Bigfoot.

Ron


When I use the word "atheist," I refer to the more useful, historical sense of the word - One who disbelievers ERRRRRRRR one who finds the non-existences of God much more likely than the existence of God.


More useful to who? When I use the word I use it cognizant of the fact that there are two types of atheists – the somewhat rare atheist who positively asserts that THERE ARE NO GODS (as if they have scoured the entire universe and know for a fact there are no Gods in this, or any dimension), and those that make no assertion – they simply haven’t been convinced that there are any Gods.

Ron



More useful for anyone who would like to distinguish between people who find the likelihood that God exists to 10%, 50%, and 80%. Historically, the word refers to people who find the nonexistent of God to be markedly more likely than the existence of God, and that is the more useful definition.


As I've said before, labels tend to get in the way. They can be a quick (and dirty) way to strawman the opposing side. That’s why, imo, if there is no agreement on the definition of terms, then we simply shouldn’t use them. One should just bypass the labels completely and say what it is that he/she does or does not believe. Easy. Smile

Ron 



They get in the way when people use overly broad definitions; they're quite helpful when they're specific and reasonably narrow in their use.


Which is irrelevant when “there is no agreement on the definition of terms”. In which case, better off not using them and just cut to the chase. Smile

Ron


There doesn't have to be agreement as to definition; there just has to be awareness and understanding. Which is why I defined it.


Really? There “doesn’t have to be agreement” as to the definition of terms?

Well, then...

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

There. I just defined it (for the sake of awareness and understanding).

Ron Smile



...and I will continue to use the more useful and historical definition, before it was co-opt ed for politic purposes. But since I know what you mean when you use it, and you know what I mean when I do, there won't be any confusion.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is the Universe conscious (4 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2017 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL